Bombay High Court
Sion Panvel Tollways Pvt. Ltd vs The Dispute Resolution Committee And ... on 5 September, 2024
Author: K.R. Shriram
Bench: K.R. Shriram
2024:BHC-AS:35980-DB
TAUSEEF Tauseef 1/3 04-WP.356.2018.doc
LAIQUEE
FAROOQUI
Digitally signed by IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TAUSEEF LAIQUEE
FAROOQUI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Date: 2024.09.06
18:13:19 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO.356 OF 2018
Sion Panvel Tollways Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The Dispute Resolution Committee & Ors. ...Respondents
__________
Ms. Auchita Nair a/w. Mr. Shwetaank Nikam i/b. M/s. Vidhii Partners
for Petitioner.
Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl. G. P. a/w. Mr. S. L. Babar, AGP for Respondent
Nos.2 and 3.
__________
CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 5th SEPTEMBER 2024
P.C. :
1. Prayer clauses (a) and (b) in the petition reads as under:-
"a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the observations,
findings and conclusions given under the Impugned Report dated
20/01/2017 by the Dispute Resolution Committee constituted by
the Judgment dated 08/09/2015 of this Hon'ble Court in Writ
Petition No. 5764 of 2015, being such observations, findings and
conclusions were beyond the scope of the Committee and being
given/made against the principles of natural justice, are illegal,
invalid, null and void and therefore not binding on the Petitioner;
b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or
any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, calling for the records, papers and
proceeding of the present case and after going into the legality and
proprietary thereof, be pleased to quash and/or set aside the
Impugned Report dated 20/01/2017 passed by the Dispute
Resolution Committee constituted by the Judgment dated
08/09/2015 of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 5764 of
2015;"
2. The grievance of Petitioner is that the Committee constituted
by the order dated 8th September 2015 actually failed to decide the
Tauseef 2/3 04-WP.356.2018.doc
disputes/differences between Petitioner and Respondent Nos.2 and 3
regarding the principles for determining the loss that Petitioner claims it
had suffered. Ms. Nair submitted that Committee rejected the claims of
Petitioner on extraneous grounds and thereby went beyond its
jurisdictions. Ms. Nair also stated that Petitioner has filed a commercial
suit against the State of Maharashtra within the jurisdiction of this
Court and that suit is still pending being Commercial Suit No.923 of
2018.
3. We have considered the report of the Committee, copy
whereof is at Exhibit-A to the petition. In the report, in Conclusions of
the Committee, it is recorded in "first part of the claim"- it is noticed by
the Committee that although certain amounts have been sought by the
claimant, no actual data has been produced by the claimant before the
committee. Paragraph (c) and (d) of paragraph 1 in the Conclusion (H)
reads as under:-
"1. ......
a. ......
b. ......
First Part of the Claim:-
c. As regards the first part of the Claim, the Claimant seeks to claim
the purported loss caused to it by the Toll notifications dated 26 th
May 2015 and 30th June 2015 by way of which exemptions to
certain categories of vehicles were granted by the State.
d. At the outset and before dealing with the rival submissions, it is
noticed by the Committee that although certain amounts have been
sought by the Claimant no actual data has been produced by the
Claimant before this Committee. It was necessary for the Claimant
to set out in detail and with evidence its claim for the purported
Tauseef 3/3 04-WP.356.2018.doc
loss caused to it by the two notifications issued by the State. The
data as sought by the Committee to verify the actual loss ought to
have been produced by the Claimant which the Claimant has failed
to do."
4. In paragraph (i) of para 1 of the conclusion (h), the
Committee has recorded that it had directed Claimant (Petitioner
herein) to produce real time traffic data of the road and the Claimant
having failed to do, it is not possible for the Committee to accept the
amount of loss as claimed by the Claimant. In the petition, though
these portions have been reproduced, we do not find that the same have
been even contested. It is stated that the scope of the Committee was to
settle the disputes/differences between the parties arising out of the
determination of loses which the Committee failed to do. It is also
stated that the members of the Committee were aware that the data
were made available by Petitioner before Respondent No.3. Therefore,
there are disputed questions of fact which this Court cannot go into
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Therefore, petition dismissed.
6. Petitioner may, however, pursue the suit that it has filed in
accordance with law.
(JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)
